Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, Dieter AA, Myers ER, Sung VW. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:230.e1–5.
Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1201–6.
Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66:303–18.
Wang LC, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Hu JC, Laudano MA, Davison WL, Schulster ML, et al. Trends in mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse repair from the Medicare Database. Urology. 2015;86:885–91.
O’Sullivan OE, Matthews CA, O’Reilly BA. Sacrocolpopexy: is there a consistent surgical technique? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:747–50.
Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology. 2004;63:373–6.
•• Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse. JAMA. 2014;311:1023. The OPTIMAL trial is a well-designed RCT comparing the two most common transvaginal approaches to apical prolapse repair, SSLF, and USLS. Using rigorous methods and strict definitions of surgical success, it demonstrated equivalent anatomic and functional outcomes among the two techniques at 2-year follow-up. It also provides valuable information on adverse events that are useful for patient counseling
•• Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309:2016. Long-term followup from the CARE trial (ie., abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse, with or without Burch suspension) shows favorable, but declining, anatomic success rates with time, which are accompanied by an increasing rate of mesh exposure with time
•• Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:44–55. This systematic review discusses the best available evidence regarding SC vs. native tissue vaginal repair
•• Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. In: Maher C, editor. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2016. p. CD012376. This recent Cochrane review comprehensively compiles the current evidence on surgical approaches for apical vaginal prolapse repair.
Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79:532–6.
• Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196:159–65. This RCT demonstrated no significant difference in anatomical outcomes between ASC and LSC
Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:377–84.
Anand M, Woelk JL, Weaver AL, Trabuco EC, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB. Perioperative complications of robotic sacrocolpopexy for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1193–200.
• Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:5–12. This is one of two RCTs comparing LSC and RSC which demonstrated higher costs with RSC but equivalent outcomes
• Matthews CA. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: how to avoid short- and long-term complications. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17:81. This review summarizes the most current evidence on the short- and long-term complications unique to SC as well as offers important technical considerations for safely performing minimally invasive SC
• Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005–13. This is one of two RCTs comparing LSC and RSC which demonstrated higher costs with RSC but equivalent outcomes
Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker M-O, Chartier-Kastler E, et al. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol. 2012;30:393–8.
Kenton K, Mueller ER, Tarney C, Bresee C, Anger JT. One-year outcomes after minimally invasive Sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:382–4.
• Unger CA, Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Ridgeway B. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:547.e1–8. In this large retrospective study of 406 women who underwent SC, RSC was associated with higher rate of bladder injury and reoperation than was LSC
Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JOL. The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1438–43.
Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L. Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1837–40.
Hsu Y, Chen L, Summers A, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JOL, DeLancey JOL. Anterior vaginal wall length and degree of anterior compartment prolapse seen on dynamic MRI. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:137–42.
Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Hsu Y, DeLancey JOL. Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:324–32.
Lowder JL, Park AJ, Ellison R, Ghetti C, Moalli P, Zyczynski H, et al. The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:152–7.
Ercoli A, Campagna G, Delmas V, Ferrari S, Morciano A, Scambia G, et al. Anatomical insights into sacrocolpopexy for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:813–8.
Guiahi M, Kenton K, Brubaker L. Sacrocolpopexy without concomitant posterior repair improves posterior compartment defects. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:1267–70.
Kaser DJ, Kinsler EL, Mackenzie TA, Hanissian P, Strohbehn K, Whiteside JL. Anatomic and functional outcomes of sacrocolpopexy with or without posterior colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:1215–20.
Bradley CS, Nygaard IE, Brown MB, et al. Bowel symptoms in women 1 year after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:642.e1–8.
Lewis C, Salamon C, Priestley JL, Gurshumov E, Culligan P. Prospective cohort study of bowel function after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:87–9.
Grimes CL, Lukacz ES, Gantz MG, et al. What happens to the posterior compartment and bowel symptoms after sacrocolpopexy? Evaluation of 5-year outcomes from E-CARE. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:261–6.
Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:1533–8.
Salvatore S, Athanasiou S, Digesu GA, Soligo M, Sotiropoulou M, Serati M, et al. Identification of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:301–4.
Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Gebhart JB. Factors influencing selection of vaginal, open abdominal, or robotic surgery to treat apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:236–42.
Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A. Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery: a review at 5 years after surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18:1317–24.
Kudish BI, Iglesia CB, Sokol RJ, Cochrane B, Richter HE, Larson J, et al. Effect of weight change on natural history of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:81–8.
Rappa C, Saccone G. Recurrence of vaginal prolapse after total vaginal hysterectomy with concurrent vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: comparison between normal-weight and overweight women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:601.e1–4.
McDermott CD, Park J, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Sacral colpopexy versus transvaginal mesh colpopexy in obese patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:461–7.
Bradley CS, Kenton KS, Richter HE, Gao X, Zyczynski HM, Weber AM, et al., Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Obesity and outcomes after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:690.e1–8.
Mueller ER, Kenton K, Anger JT, Bresee C, Tarnay C. Cosmetic appearance of port-site scars 1 year after laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy: a supplementary study of the ACCESS clinical trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:917–21.
Noor N, Rahimi S, Pereira E, Treszezamsky A, Garely A, Vardy M, et al. Patient preferences for abdominal incisions used for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21:348–54.
Goebel K, Goldberg JM. Women’s preference of cosmetic results after gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:64–7.
Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol. 2012;187:638–43.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. In: Maher C (ed) Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, p CD004014.
Ismail S, Duckett J, Rizk D, Sorinola O, Kammerer-Doak D, Contreras-Ortiz O, et al. Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1619–32.
Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:44–9.
Callewaert G, Bosteels J, Housmans S, Verguts J, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Van der Aa F, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:115–23.
Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K. Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:234–8.
Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D. Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:306–13.
Esposito C, El Ghoneimi A, Yamataka A, et al. Work-related upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in paediatric laparoscopic surgery. A multicenter survey J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48:1750–6.
Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, Woo R, Reyes R, Hernandez-Boussard T, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery. 2010;147:830–9.
Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Rommens H, Spelzini F, Vandenbroucke V, et al. Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1459–68.
Mustafa S, Amit A, Filmar S, Deutsch M, Netzer I, Itskovitz-Eldor J, et al. Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: establishment of a learning curve and short-term outcomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:983–8.
Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1185–91.
Germain A, Thibault F, Galifet M, Scherrer M-L, Ayav A, Hubert J, et al. Long-term outcomes after totally robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:525–9.
Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2390–4.
Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805–23.
Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, et al., Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:688.e1–5.
Osmundsen BC, Clark A, Goldsmith C, Adams K, Denman MA, Edwards R, et al. Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:86–8.
Culligan PJ, Murphy M, Blackwell L, Hammons G, Graham C, Heit MH. Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1473–82.
Visco AG, Weidner AC, Barber MD, Myers ER, Cundiff GW, Bump RC, et al. Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:297–302.
Good MM, Abele TA, Balgobin S, Schaffer JI, Slocum P, McIntire D, et al. Preventing L5–S1 discitis associated with sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:285–90.
Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Lippmann Q, Lukacz ES, Luber KM, Nager CW. A pilot study comparing anatomic failure after Sacrocolpopexy with absorbable or permanent sutures for vaginal mesh attachment. Perm J. 2014;18:40–4.
de Lima OA, Valente CA. Rectus fascia colpopexy for complete prolapse of the vaginal vault after hysterectomy. Int Surg. 72:119–23.
Traiman P, De Luca LA, Silva AA, Antonini R, Dias R, Rodrigues JR. Abdominal colpopexy for complete prolapse of the vagina. Int Surg. 77:91–5.
Girão MJ, Wakavaiach VM, Sartori MG, Baracat EC, de Lima GR. Rectus fascia colpopexy in posthysterectomy vaginal prolapse: analysis of 18 cases. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1997;8:25–8. discussion 29
Abraham N, Quirouet A, Goldman HB. Transabdominal sacrocolpopexy with autologous rectus fascia graft. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1273–5.
LATINI JM, BROWN JA, KREDER KJ. Abdominal sacral colpopexy using autologous fascia lata. J Urol. 2004;171:1176–9.
Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Shippey S, Cundiff GW, Sanses T, Blomquist JL, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:557.e1–5.
Wirth MP, Froehner M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the new gold standard? Eur Urol. 2010;57:750–1.